9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued by the adjudicating authority in Mumbai, the Customs authorities at Mumbai had sufficient jurisdiction to entertain the claim for refund. In that view of the matter, we quash and set aside the directions contained in the communication dated 15 November 2010 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, directing that the refund claim be decided by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Delhi. We direct that the refund claim shall be heard and disposed of by the Competent Authority under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. Upon the passing of the requisite order, the amount, if any, there found to be due and payable to the Petitioners shall be refunded within a period of one month from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o have deposited the amount on 18 June 2001 by a Pay Order drawn in favour of the Commissioner of Customs. A recording letter was addressed on 18 June 2001 to the Fifth Respondent. Notices to show cause were issued to the Petitioners by the DRI at New Delhi and Mumbai on 6 May 2002. By an order dated 14 October 2004, the Commissioner of Customs at Mumbai adjudicated upon both the notices and purported to appropriate and adjust the amount of Rs. 1.02 crores against the differential duty payable in respect of his order relating to the show cause notice issued by the DRI at New Delhi. The order of adjudication was set aside by the CESTAT on 29 August 2006. On 31 January 2007, the first Petitioner filed an application for return of the deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether an amount of Rs. 1.02 crores was deposited at the Air Cargo Complex or the New Customs House, Mumbai. Moreover, it was stated that the exact calculation and quantification of the refund claim had not been done as a result of which the refund claim could not be processed. The Petitioners were called upon to rectify these deficiencies. In response to the letter, the Petitioners Advocate by a detailed letter dated 30 April 2008 adverted to the relevant facts, including details in regard to the deposit of Rs. 1.02 crores by Pay Order dated 18 June 2001. By a letter dated 13 June 2008, the Petitioners Advocate also stated that the Pay Order was cleared by the Department through the Reserve Bank of India on 21 June 2001 and the mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Petitioners against the adjudication were allowed by the CESTAT and the appeals filed by the department to the Supreme Court were dismissed on the ground of limitation. The letter, however, purported to state as follows : (a) The amount of Rs. 1.02 Cr was received by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai at New Custom House, Mumbai against Cash No. 2358 dated 19-6-2001. (b) The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai s order dated 27-9-2004 (issued on 30-9-2004) had in the very first instance ordered recovery of Customs Duty of Rs. 1,00,40,231/-, along with interest, in respect of goods imported through ACC, Delhi and CWC, Okhla, Delhi by appropriating the said amount of Rs. 1.02 Crore. (c) Accordingly, the ACC, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies that the Petitioners had, in fact, made a deposit of Rs. 1.02 crores with the Commissioner of Customs at Mumbai, pending an investigation by the DRI. The order of adjudication was also passed by the adjudicating authority at Mumbai who appears to have been appointed as a Common Adjudicator to adjudicate upon the show cause notices pertaining to New Delhi and Mumbai. The amount was appropriated in respect of the demand which emanated from the adjudication order in so far as it pertains to the Air Cargo Complex and CWC at New Delhi. In our view, there was absolutely no justification for the authorities to keep the refund application pending when the facts were not in dispute. The authorities have clearly stated in their letter dated 16 De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion dated 15 November 2010 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, directing that the refund claim be decided by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ACC, Delhi. We direct that the refund claim shall be heard and disposed of by the Competent Authority under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai. Upon the passing of the requisite order, the amount, if any, there found to be due and payable to the Petitioners shall be refunded within a period of one month from the date of the passing of the order. We direct that the Competent Authority shall pass an order on the application for refund after furnishing to the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard within a period of six weeks from today in accordan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
